On Friday 16 January 2004 04:16, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Robert Lunnon <bobl at optushome.com.au> writes:
> > This is true, but it is not very time consuming. I had considered
> > caching the cpuid results which would eliminate the multiple handling but
> > didn't feel it was worth the effort. This function does not tend to get
> > called often in windows programs (Usually once) but If you like I'll add
> > the caching.
>> All that extra work is simply because you are adding abstractions
> where none are necessary. It looks like a bad case of Not Invented
> Here syndrome: you have already submitted that code a number of times,
> and I have already explained that it's way too complex for what we
> need, so I didn't put it in. Now someone else has done a simple
> implementation that works fine, and you are trying to replace it all
> once again with your original code that I already rejected. If you
> want to improve the cpuid support, please improve the existing code;
> as long as you keep pushing your all singing all dancing new
> implementation you won't get anywhere.
This is an incorrect charaterisation, but since you hold the keys to the cvs
do as you wish.
BTW: As a side note to the maintainers of rewind, the rewind project is
welcome to use all my patches also.
Bob